The real cause. The rather lively exchange of views between President Chirac and Prime Minister Tony Blair (see our Bulletin on 30 October p 11) would signify nothing out of the ordinary other than the fact that there is a fundamental divergence on an essential aspect of European civilisation, that of its agriculture. What is at stake is too important to restrict ourselves to observing that even the top leaders are not beyond using a language that is far from being polite at times but which is quickly forgotten (and which sometimes is not at all due to change of mood but is carefully calculated).
Although Tony Blair asserted that the French President protects the interests of his farmers with the money of European tax payers, this was in reaction to the Franco-German compromise on agriculture. Jacques Chirac was obviously obliged to react. I don't agree that the British Prime Minister was annoyed because France and Germany had asserted that in future negotiations on the EU financial framework, "British reduction" will be discussed together with other aspects of the Community budget (see this section on 30 October). I'll leave the British press to interpret the matter in this way where any reference to a budgetary reduction is represented as "a direct and dastardly attack" on the United Kingdom. This attitude consists of demanding a hefty reduction in EU agricultural spending and at the same time maintaining a discount of which the United Kingdom has benefited. It defies logic. Everybody is aware that the discount was introduced because the UK used to receive a very small amount of CAP funding and it was therefore unfair that it participated in a substantial way to the spending incurred by this policy. However, if expenditure is cut, the reasons for the discount will cease to exist. Tony Blair, an intelligent and responsible politician knows full well that the British discount will at some stage have to be negotiated from CAP funding because the two subjects are indisputably linked and interdependent.
The conclusion is simple: the divergence focuses effectively on the EU policy on agriculture in the continent. In my opinion, Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac are both wrong in their different ways. The former is wrong in his overall attitude and his lack of understanding of the importance of agriculture to Europe and the latter for the way in which he defends the current CAP.
A false legend but one that won't go away. The British Prime Minister bases his attitude on the myth that agricultural policy in Europe is damaging to the world's poor countries. This thesis can be contradicted by all serious analyses and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which "work on the ground" and increasingly by the authorities in these countries themselves. But it is a legend that hasn't gone away, backed up by certain international senior civil servants who have only experienced famine from afar, and supported by certain high flyers who don't even bother to look into the matter (such as Guy Verhofstadt and Giuliano Amato). Why not ask the poor countries themselves? I am speaking of the countries that have experienced genuine food crises, on some occasions, famine, and not the countries where the farmers are considerably richer than most European peasants, such as those in New Zealand, Australia and other Cairns Group countries, including the USA itself. New Zealand, Australian, US and other farmers deserve their prosperity, they've worked for it by way of the quality of their production and in at least one case, that of New Zealand, by an admirable agricultural revolution that has radically reduced the use of chemical additives. But these countries must stop claiming to speak for the poor countries. What they are seeking is unhindered access to the European market and nothing else. It's a legitimate aim and thy are right to pursue it but Europe has no choice but to reject it. Franz Fischler and Pascal Lamy have stated this firmly on several occasions because they recognise that case all too well, although the rhetoric uttered by some European governments (which don't know what they're talking about at all) doesn't make their job any easier.
The penny drops in ACP countries. The thing that counts, is that countries which have experienced genuine food crises and the real tragedy of having their children starving to death are beginning to realise who their real enemy is and which is a mortal danger to them and their agricultural products - totally unfettered competition at a global level. ACP countries in particular (which make up most UN poor countries) know that the day that this attractive programme of global liberalisation comes, they will know longer be able to export bananas, sugar, tuna, rum or anything (almost anything) to the EU faced with competition from the whole world. They would in certain cases be able to develop some products for the European market but at what cost to their countries and their development! The cost would in fact be to pay for a return to the ruinous past of colonialisation: export single crop farming for export which benefits the multinationals who promote it, international big trade interests and sometimes the corrupt political classes in the poor countries themselves to the detriment of the local population and any possibility of national autonomy. Single crop farming crushes any chance of developing agriculture that responds to the needs of a country's people. It also completely binds their economies to fluctuations on the world market for the product they export (artificial prices as we know) and aggravates their dependency on imports or international food aid for food for their citizens and cancels out any chance of re-conquering their dignity and protecting their traditions. This is, however, the model that certain international organisations and government authorities propose, including Tony Blair!
New angle and two more examples of proof. I believe that I have provided the evidence in this section on several occasions - I say proof, unequivocally. I cannot give the same demonstration every time. I restrict myself to going back to this section on 24 July and provide two more elements. On 24 July I quoted the very hard-line declarations of Sylvie Brunet on the real culprits for the famine and the damage caused by the opening up of the agricultural markets. I also gave examples of the projects carried out by the NGOs in the poor countries for subsistence farming and against export farming to the rich countries. I am specifically talking about NGOs that support small projects on the ground, not the few colossal projects that are the target for much anti-globalisation rhetoric while at the same time support free trade for agricultural products.
The first new element involves a documentary broadcast in Germany and France by the television channel "Arte". I'll just recapitulate on two parts of the programme made by the authors themselves: "an investigation in Senegal where famine is the result of an agricultural policy based on single crop farming of peanuts (developed by the former French colonialists) and free trade etc. Prices crashed and Senegal has not been able to obtain the income it had hoped for from rice and wheat, which are crucial to feeding its people". The result has been two million people seriously under-nourished. I know very well that Government Heads have better things to do than just watch the television but some advisors could let them know about the documentary and those who want to open the EU up to rice from poor countries. The effect would be t Senegal remaining without rice and that other shortages would develop in other areas (powerful trade interests would orientate themselves to exporting to the European market because it is more profitable) and at the same time the European rice production (ecologically crucial in some humid zones) will have disappeared. What a spectacular scenario! The second element which I wanted to outline was the anxious protests of ACP countries against Australian and Brazilian interests which attacked the WTO in Geneva for the European system that guaranteed ACP sugar producers a preferential outlet on the European market at guaranteed prices. I told you that ACP countries were beginning to understand that their real enemy was free trade on the agricultural market.
"Community preference," the priority of priorities. It still remains for me to explain why Jacques Chirac is also wrong in some respects. By rejecting the Fischler project for revising the CAP and by always stressing the "export vocation" of France, he creates the impression of worrying too much about the interests of the large export companies than the real reasons why European agriculture should be defended: protecting the natural environment (already badly managed), bio-diversity (already compromised by numerous errors), territorial balance in our countries, their traditions and countryside. All this is vital for our civilisation and has nothing to do with "export discounts", which are one CAP aspect that can effectively damage poor countries by provoking unfair trade, with the expected impact on their fragile economies. Other aspects include orientations which European agriculture needs. The first consists in making European farmers produce for the market and consumers and not orientate their production on Community subsidies, which has happened too often. Subsidies must therefor not be based on the quantities produced. The second element, which is more important, is the respect for "Community preference"; Mr Chirac never mentions this. If this preference is applied or re-established in areas where it has been too excessively dismantled, the undeniable "export vocation" of France could develop within the enlarged EU, encompassing other Member States and candidate countries because all of the countries that want to benefit from CAP support and guarantees are obliged to respect the preference for EU agricultural products.
When Jacques Chirac adopts this kind of language, the nasty utterance from Tony Blair quoted above will not at all be justified. Defence of European agriculture, under the auspices of a renewed CAP, will be one of the EU and its institutions' priority responsibilities. I believe that the financial decisions to be taken at the Brussels Summit will not provide a stumbling block to this objective. I'll explain why tomorrow.