Strasbourg, 20/06/2007 (Agence Europe) - Much ado about (almost) nothing. This is how the European Parliament's assessment of the result of the G8 could be summed up, at least in terms of its development plank and the follow-up of the commitments taken at Gleneagles (July 2005), with a view to helping sub-Saharan Africa to catch up in the achievements of the millennium development objectives (MDO), thus halving poverty by 2015.
Agreeing with Glenys Kinnock, (UK Labour, co-president of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly), the author of an own-initiative report on the mid-term review of the MDOs, the MEPs stated, in Strasbourg on 19 June, that the EU-15 would not even have succeeded in bringing its average public development aid to 0.33% of GDP in 2006 if certain member states had not inflated the figures. For this reason, the member states were invited to “change up a gear”, because although the debt relief entered into the accounts as public development aid has been deducted, Community aid is not growing sufficiently for the Gleneagles commitments to be honoured.
The Parliament calls on the Commission to ensure that the financial resources of the 10th EDF for the ACP-EU partnership are made available during the transitional period (2008-2010) as required to conclude the ratification procedures by the 27. It suggests that the EU may decide to use new forms of funding for the MDOs, channelling it through the EIB for example. The MEPs also urged the EU and G8 to recognise the growing role played by new fund donors - including China - and to enter into dialogue with them on approaches and standards to channel external aid. In particular, they lay emphasis on the importance of respecting standards approved at international level for the implication of aid on the ground.
It was only to be expected: during Thursday afternoon's debate, the members of all the political groups and tendencies of the European Parliament were very much less than impressed with the results of the G8 in Heiligendamm. As the Council did not take part in this debate, it was Commissioner Louis Michel who set the tone by voicing his own reservations and disappointment. The intention of granting greater importance to Africa is, in itself, a very good thing, but it is the commitments which count: and yet it is the EU which funds the vast majority of overall aid, whilst aid from the United States has dropped by 20% and that from Japan by 10%. In the same way, on the subject of good governance, good intentions have replaced incentives for “appropriate and credible” reforms in each country; and if commitments on health and disease constitute progress compared to initial caution, much more of this is needed. Speaking more generally, Mr Michel criticised the fact that, in his view, the G8 meetings are starting to look more and more like “beauty contests”. “The African countries”, he stated, “do not appreciate the lack of adherence to the commitments” on the part of the G8 countries and “are finding an alternative model in China”. China buys raw material from Africa, builds roads, invests (Mr Michel announced that he will visit China on 12 July to discuss precisely the issue of Africa) and if the G8 members do not learn from this, there is the risk that this “bombastic show will become a sideshow”. Mr Michel admitted that he was “a little surprised” at the judgment of the rapporteur, Glenys Kinnock, on the role of the EU as donor, as its share is in any case €100 per head of population, compared to €69 in Japan and €53 in the United States. As for budgetary support, the commissioner considers that this is the “right instrument, because it is the most favourable to ownership by the partner country”, but its forecastability and flexibility should nonetheless be improved still further.
The rapporteur, British Labour member Glenys Kinnock, criticised the use of debt relief by certain countries to give the impression that they had increased their aid, and she criticised the absence of a specific timetable and binding commitments on the part of the United States and Russia on climate change and a lack of action at a commercial level. “We absolutely must change gear if we are to achieve genuine social and political change… we are not asking for charity but for justice”, Mrs Kinnock concluded.
The G8 was very much below expectations for Dutch member Maria Martens (EPP-ED), who warned certain countries: debt relief cannot be “a gift” given indiscriminately, including to governments who will not use it to resolve their countries' problems. The fight against AIDS requires new initiatives, said her compatriot Margrietus van den Berg, who added that aid coordination leaves a great deal to be desired. The Irish member Eoin Ryan (Union for Europe of Nations) concurs: it is not the level of aid which counts so much as the way it is used, and coordination in aid administration is a key issue. Mr Ryan speaks from experience as, when he was minister, he was in charge with projects to fight poverty in Dublin. The most critical words about the members of the G8 came from German member Tobias Pflüeger (GUE/NGL), who questioned the legitimacy of these “governments which proclaim themselves leaders of the world”, going on to criticise the costs of the meeting (€12 million for the enclosure protecting the heads of state and government alone) and accuse the police of inciting violence. We must take action on the structural causes of under-development, stated an Italian member of the same group, Luisa Morgantini, who went on to plead for the countries receiving aid to take greater responsibility for it, and for aid under no circumstances to be “a present related to economic and political interests”. I learnt what it means to be needy when I arrived in Sweden as a refugee, said Swedish member Anna Ibrisagic (EPP/ED), stressing the fact that it is most important to help people to help themselves (and lay more emphasis on liberalising and cleaning finances in the countries receiving aid). Speaking along the same lines, German member Feleknas Uca (GUE/NGL) stated that access to decent work is of fundamental importance: not enough is said about this, in her view. The African countries must become committed to reducing commercial obstacles between themselves, said Irish member Mairead McGuinness (EPP-ED), whilst her compatriot and member of the same group Gay Mitchell pointed the finger at the political classes: governments have “abdicated their leadership to rock stars”, he complained, calling upon them to listen to the protests of the citizens.
Several of those who took the floor, including Dutch Green member Kathalijne Buitenweg, stressed the need for improved healthcare for women, particularly in childbirth and prenatal care: UK Conservative member Nirj Deva spoke out with feeling against passages of the report which appeared to be promoting abortion, “which I certainly do not consider to be a right”. These words provoked outrage from Swedish Socialist Asa Westlund.
In his speech at the start of the debate, Commissioner Louis Michel was most courteous in stressing that he did not share Mr Deva's “far too radical” point of view, “which does not seem to take sufficient account of the notion of individual liberty”. On the basis of the work of the G8, Louis Michel confirmed his judgment: this exercise, “which is becoming increasingly incantatory in nature (…), raises certain questions about its usefulness”. Mr Michel is not afraid to tackle things head-on: some people question the legitimacy of the G8, and he acknowledges that “entire countries of geopolitical and human reality remain excluded” from this exercise. Furthermore, the commissioner made the following clarifications to various dossiers: - climate change. Mr Michel hopes to launch an “in-depth cooperation strategy” with the hardest-hit developing countries, and will come to the European Parliament “fairly soon” to sum up his reflections; - economic partnership agreements (EPA). Their success depends on access to trade and the development of an economic dynamic. They have given rise to a debate, which was useful because it led to a number of improvements (long transitional period, for example); - debt relief. There must remain an “additional measure”. Mr Michel warned those who would like to call the definition of the OECD into question that this could reopen discussions, particularly on eligibility; - aid efficiency. This will be greater if the governments “are a little less concerned with their own flag” and work together. In this way, in the 10th EDF, some 10 countries are said to be prepared to enter a joint programming. (lg/an)