Madeira, 24/09/2007 (Agence Europe) - On the sidelines of the informal meeting of development ministers in Funchal (Madeira), Louis Michel, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, agreed to answer our questions on some of the matters discussed. Our interview went as follows:
EUROPE: Does the Council's informal debate on development and security point to a fear that development policy will one day be part and parcel of foreign, security and defence policy?
Louis Michel: It goes without saying that there is a connection between security issues, which often involve military engagement, and development. There is no security without development and no development without security. But it is also true that, when the military is engaged in security operations, political responsibility is also totally committed. The question of knowing who holds the political responsibility for military engagement in security policy is therefore essential.
You cannot mix everything up. This poses a real question: that of defining the limits of military engagement. This also poses the question of knowing to what extent the military can be used as an instrument for development. I have the feeling that these points of view must be brought closer. We have already looked at these matters and I believe the Commission will be able to present a serious and quite ambitious consensus on this quite soon.
EUROPE: A text that would establish the basic principles for optimal complementarity of both policies?
Louis Michel: A document that would define the limits of action of both, which would give an exact definition of the natural missions of each. The military is not there for humanitarian or development tasks, but it is needed to ensure security.
Another element is also important, I feel. We should be able to define the criteria on which the rules of engagement are based. For example, if the military are called upon to provide security for humanitarian workers. Is it the defence minister who should have authority over them or the minister for foreign affairs? Personally, I believe it is the foreign minister. As is already the case, for example, in Denmark. In Great Britain, also, for a number of engagements. If we had consensus on the rules for military engagement in the humanitarian field, this would already be an absolutely enormous step forward.
Some say there should also be a civilian component within the military. That there should be multidisciplinary expertise, which I'm all for. But a civilian component - what does that mean? I do not believe we should mix either the categories or the natural vocations of each category. The armed forces are there, first and foremost, to go to war, to defend a territory, to ensure the security of a population. The army is not there for humanitarian or development work but can be used as a tool.
The same is true for civil protection. We have had a debate on the role of civil protection compared to humanitarian aid. Civil protection - that is an instrument, a means to an end. Civil protection cannot take leadership over the concept of what is humanitarian.
When speaking before the Council, I defended the goal strictly speaking of development and the goal strictly speaking of humanitarian aid.
EUROPE: In some cases, mobilising military forces for humanitarian ends has worked well, such as the Artemis operation, in the Ituri region of Congo, for example.
Louis Michel: Success often depends on the rules of engagement, acceptance by the population and the local authorities - all that is part of traditional political dialogue, which is both preventive and proactive. But there are some cases, as in Afghanistan where categories have become mixed up and where the humanitarian side has obviously been taken as a target. Even in Darfur, it is quite difficult.
EUROPE: Do you have the feeling that we are moving forward in development aid coordination, that you recommend?
Louis Michel: Yes, I have the impression that we are making headway when it comes to convictions, but, when it comes to action, more work is needed. You cannot change decades of customs, behaviour, bilateral reflexes and inward-looking overnight. External relations are like that - an area steeped in dominion. Sovereignty is sacred. I have never suggested meddling with the sovereignty of states on development matters. I simply ask for the work to be shared out better, so that we know what we are doing, and for there to be no more “orphan” countries without aid amongst the partner countries - those that are of no interest to anyone and for which one is pleased to find the Commission !
When it comes to the division of labour, to seeking better coordination, and to the approximation of legislation, then work is making good progress. For the 10th EDF, the whole programme
was analysed in common with the member states. Now common programmes are being proposed. In eight or nine partner countries, there are today common programming consortia. This is the case of the DRC where twelve partners are working together to try and divide the work out amongst themselves.
EUROPE: Does the Commission have the means to effectively implement development aid?
Louis Michel: Unfortunately, we live with rules invented by member states and by the Parliament, justified by transparency, control - admirable objectives to which I adhere - but if you follow through a project from the moment the decision to carry out the project is taken to the moment when it is implemented, there is an impressive number of obstacles to be overcome: - audits, consultation - both internal and external - “quality groups” (interservice meetings that gather in Brussels to discuss what is being done in the depths of Benin …). We live with the weight of a theoretical approach bearing down on us. But things are developing well. Since relocation that has sent thousands of European officials in delegations to help partner countries absorb funding, the average duration of a project is today two years compared to three and a half years four years ago.
In recent years, the Commission has paid out over €8 billion annually out of a €10 billion budget. There is therefore very little money that is not used. And that is great progress. (an)