Discussions at last week's ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly were useful and enlightening, and not just on EPAs (economic partnership agreements - see yesterday's newsletter). The debate on the situation in Chad was every bit as significant for the future of relations between the European Union and Africa. Most African MPs voted against the draft resolution, which had been drawn up only with difficulty, and the result was that the resolution was not approved. The reaction of several MEPs was very sharp, as may be seen from our report in newsletter 9627. Glenys Kinnock, joint chairwoman of the assembly, wondered whether this failure might sour relations between the EU and the ACP; a German MEP exclaimed, “We won't forget!”; a French MEP said she felt “disappointed” and “betrayed”.
Why were reactions so sharp? For two reasons. The first is related to how the assembly itself operates. The African MPs who rejected the compromise said that they had done so because the Chadian representative had not been present when the vote was taken. MEP Jürgen Schröder noted that this opened the way for the assembly to be prevented from having its say on controversial issues simply “by means of the representative of the country concerned choosing not to attend the vote”. It is unacceptable.
Conditions under threat. The second reason why this failed vote is so important is more general in nature and is linked to the conditions set in relations between the EU and the ACP states. To what extent does Europe have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of associated countries? To impose, for example, conditions on its funding. The problem is not a new one; it has been widely debated with regard to Chinese loans to which no conditions whatsoever are attached, neither political, nor environmental, nor any other kind. EU institutions monitor respect for human rights and democracy in partner countries, and the European Investment Bank (EIB) makes it funding conditional on a number of very strict, mainly environmental, conditions. The Chad resolution affair, to a certain extent, marks the Parliamentary Assembly's entry into this fundamental debate, and the European side, through what at first sight might seem its over-reaction, has expressed its fear that the assembly might be deprived of a voice.
The proposed compromise resolution, drawn up after much effort and long negotiations, commented on every aspect of the situation in Chad, including the most sensitive, such as the so-called Zoe's Arc affair, the involvement of “rebel” forces in the peace dialogue, and the called-for separation of the European forces (Eufor) and French “Epervier” troops. This episode, then, raises the broad question: do all ACP countries agree with conditions being set, on criteria having to be met for EDF and EIB funding? Or are they being tempted by the “Chinese system”?
Search for a balance. The very nature of the ACP-EU Association is at stake. European countries, it is clear, must change their ways that hark back to a past time; France would seem to be making this change, or, at least, it is thinking about it. It is not for Europeans to choose between forces disputing power in any African country, or support one side or the other. But, in an association, rules are essential otherwise it is the association itself that will go to the wall. Europe has responsibilities towards Africa and it has to assume them. If associated countries choose to treat Europeans, Americans and Chinese in the same way, that is their right, they can do so. But, if this were to be, joint ACP-EU institutions would lose their significance and Europe's specific obligations would have less weight. The financial burden has to be shared: it is neither viable nor fair for Europe to pay and China and the United States to make money. China lends and the EU gives. African countries are getting into serious debt with China and at the same time call for old debts to be cancelled; they reject trade reciprocity and allow themselves to be flooded with Chinese goods.
I believe that balance will ultimately be found, as it is of common interest, but both parties will have to work together in good faith. The Parliamentary Assembly thoroughly aired the general issues in its resolution on the structural adjustment programmes imposed on Africa, particularly by the IMF and the World Bank, which have now acknowledged their failure (see yesterday's newsletter). What the assembly called for is very significant, and alongside the claims, it also indicates what the African countries themselves will have to do. There are other points, however, to which this column will return tomorrow. (F.R.)