Contradictory situation. Information was so contradictory that the first reaction could have been one of asking oneself whether they were actually referring to the same continent. Official declarations made at the Lisbon EU-Africa summit announced a new era at the same time as the break with the trade regime, applicable in two weeks' time. The media painted a dramatic picture of it all. Who was telling the truth? Actually, everything was true at the same time. It is true that the EU and Africa are making a political effort to renew their relations; it is true that the shape of these relations is still confused and somewhat controversial; it is true that certain African countries are progressing down the road of growth and good governance while other situations remain tragic.
Three documentaries that were on the TV roughly at the same time described: a country whose population is currently being wiped out through HIV (Swaziland); the ferocious war (Congo) for the coltan mines (precious minerals used in electronics and sought everywhere from Europe to China); systematic piracy off the Somali coast, food aid to the starving Somali population. The tragedies of Darfur (and neighbouring countries) and Zimbabwe can be added. This description provides a painful picture of what is going on in parts of Africa. But another part of the picture shows that some countries have achieved encouraging rates of annual growth, have relaunched their subsistence agriculture and are moving in the direction of freedom and human rights. In much of Africa, the human factor is rich and often admirable: solidarity, generosity, creativity and courage etc.
Let's try and get rid of the extreme interpretations. I believe that Manuel Socrates and Louis Michel's aspirations for a new model of relations are sincere, as are those of their main African interlocutors. The main general orientations are broadly shared: partnerships among equals, an end to the European monopoly in Africa, no-holds barred dialogue, turning a new leaf on the aberrations of the past. The difficulties arise as soon as there are attempts to define the concrete aspects of how the new model works.
Trade disagreements persist. There is a complete misunderstanding on the most urgent aspect of all, the new trade regime starting next January. The shift to free trade compatible with WTO rules (therefore involving the principle of reciprocity) was considered as having been agreed but the facts prove otherwise. As soon as the African countries were called on to put the commitments into practice, the approach was rejected. The hypothesis of opening up their borders to European products at a given moment is described as unacceptable due to their radically different levels of development. Whatever the precautionary or transition measures, the principle of reciprocity in itself is contested by both the presidents of big African countries (South Africa at the head of them) and the leaders of pan-African organisations. José Manuel Barroso's skilful dialectics prevented a split occurring at the Lisbon summit and gave some observers the impression that a possible compromise based on the extension of technical negotiations was possible, but this is just a semblance of one. In reality, fundamental differences persist.
Following the conclusion of the summit, Peter Mandelson, the European commissioner for trade, reaffirmed the EU's position in a letter to the Financial Times: a) on 1 January the EU will open its borders to all products from ACP countries, these will be free of all customs duties and quotas; b) WTO rules impose reciprocity but this will be partial and gradual. Sensitive products from ACP countries are partly exempted and their imports will be liberalised at the end of transition periods that could last 25 years; c) the EU will pay the ACP an additional €23bn over the next seven years to help them take appropriate preparatory measures; d) if the ACP countries, which are sovereign nations, refuse to move in the direction just outlined, the EU will be compelled to apply the system of generalised preferences that has been in force for other developing countries. Mr Mandelson also said that several ACP countries had accepted the proposed formula.
It is true to say that some ACP countries have signed the agreements based on the offer described by Mr Mandelson but a solid core of African countries affirm that Africa's rejection of this formula is definitive, whatever the individual weaknesses. In practice, what has been decided is to extend negotiations. No compromise is yet in sight. (F.R.)