An historic turning-point. Relations between the EU and Africa may have reached a crossroads. The links will remain strong, but will lose the very special nature which has characterised them since the birth of the European Community. The European countries will intervene less in the internal affairs of the African countries, which will, in turn, increase their autonomy and sensitivity. Europe will have fewer rights, but also fewer responsibilities. Movement towards this state of being is not entirely new. Over the course of the waves of enlargement of the EU, the number of Member States which never had a colonial relationship with Africa has increased, and some of them have not hidden the fact that they would prefer a uniform European policy towards what was at the time known as the "third world". As I write, movement towards this is gathering pace and speed, for reasons both political and economic.
The African countries have always jealously guarded their relatively recent independence; they defend their interests and they assert their links with other parts of the world, such as the United States or, more recently, Russia and, above all, China. For their part, the European countries have felt their importance diminishing. Italy, Portugal, Belgium and, in large part, the United Kingdom have already mourned their special influence of yesteryear, and France seems to be going in the same direction. This new attitude is not a result of the loss of influence alone, but also of the intention of being less involved in the internal affairs of the African countries, declining to support any particular political force on the ground. Interventions of this type are less and less acceptable to the countries in question (which is entirely understandable), and they often have negative consequences. The United Kingdom has been powerless to avoid developments it would have preferred to do without, and France has found itself involved in difficult or equivocal situations.
Two very recent examples seem to me to sum up these developments: a) the rekindled row over the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) between the EU and the African regional groups; b) the incidents surrounding the mission of three Belgian ministers to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The Congolese negative. The Belgian Foreign Affairs Minister opted for openness and frank-talking in Kinshasa. Leading a group of three ministers , Karel de Gucht gave a speech before President Kabila which the special envoy of the Soir newspaper, Colette Braeckman, described as (our translation): " words not calculated to be agreeable, delivered in an unusual form", the Minister pronouncing an " extremely virulent" text. Having stressed the need for a transparent use of Congolese mining resources, the Minister spoke out against the fabulous privileges of some and the "dogged resistance to change expressed by those who would not hesitate to sacrifice the well-being of the population for their own personal enrichment". A new partnership must grant "the priority to the fight against corruption and improved management, transparency and legal safety".
Joseph Kabila rejected not only the tone ("very arrogant, as if our visitors had come here to teach us a thing or two"), but also the substance of the Belgian message: "Belgium must decide what kind of relationship it wants to have with DRC. Either a good, adult partnership with a sovereign and independent State, or a master/slave relationship (...). Legitimate power exists here". The President went on to give two examples, one of them political and the other economic, of what his country is calling for: a) the removal "of the post of rapporteur on human rights. We have requested that this post is not renewed. Is the Congolese state not sovereign? (…) I refuse to allow this kind of continual tutelage over us"; b) relations with China: "I do not see why DRC should be prevented from deciding on the initiatives to help it take off. We need hospitals, access to health care for all, schools, we need to create jobs. We have chosen the Chinese option, this is quite irreversible ".
The case of Congo is symptomatic, not only because DRC has concluded extended and quite spectacular agreements with China and because it is one of the richest countries in Africa in terms of raw materials, but also because Mr Kabila is currently the chair of the Community of Central African State and as such is developing major diplomatic activities (visits to South Africa, India, the UN Security Council) and has himself referred to other African countries, both politically) ("I know that if the Belgian delegation had brought a similar message to Angola, South Africa, Tanzania, Sudan and elsewhere, it would have been sent packing. That is the last time that I will agree to receive a delegation bearing a message of this kind") and economically: "South Africa, Angola, Congo-Brazzaville and many others have already concluded contracts with the Chinese, and they are starting to develop at unbelievable speeds".
Mr Kabila was not, therefore, expressing a solely Congolese mindset, but one which is broadly shared. Of course, verbal excesses on either side should not always be taken literally, and the rough edges can be smoothed. Commenting on her Congo reports, Colette Braeckman took account of both what she saw and heard in Kinshasa: "the state of the infrastructure was worse than ever. The members of Parliament have awarded themselves a monthly payment of $6,000 and each of them has a four-wheel drive jeep to help them to cross a stricken city, whilst many of the business community told us that more than ever, the ministers work by dint of envelopes and do their spending under emergency proceedings, with no controls in place". She also stressed "the legislative work carried out in the Chamber and the Senate and the proper functioning of these two assemblies, which brings together former mortal enemies side by side". Not forgetting the responsibilities of the other party, such as the delays in promised western aid (including EU aid).
Relaunch of offensive against EPA. The second major development concerns the relaunch of the offensive against the new planned agreements between the EU and the African regional associations, the Economic Partnership Agreements. The EPA are fairly similar for Africa and the other two ACP regions, the Caribbean and the Pacific. But whereas problems are of a lesser nature with the last two regions, the situation with the African countries is getting worse instead of better. Our bulletin summed up the prevailing opinions: the passionate defence by Peter Mandelson (who believes that there is no possible alternative) and the deeply rooted support of Louis Michel (who feels that the agreements are positive for the African countries and the only way of leading them towards economic development), the reservations of many African governments and a large number of MEPs who believe that it is impossible and unfair to set economies which are still fragile in competition with the European economy.
The very recent stance which leads me to return to this question, which will determine the content and nature of future relations between Europe and Africa, is the one taken by Oxfam International. As well as its affirmations of principle, the position of this NGO is also intended as an in-depth analysis in the form of a report (capably summed up by Aminata Niang in our bulletin 9653). It is an important document, due to the extent of the analysis and the status of Oxfam; the Director General of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) has stated several times that in international negotiations, Oxfam had more experts than the WTO and prepared the positions of the developing countries itself. According to this report, the EPA must be rejected, because they would cause irreversible damage to the prospects of development of these ACP countries and would hit their populations hard. They would tie the hands of the ACP governments, by preventing them from taking the measures necessary for the creation of jobs and decent subsistence means for their populations.
It is clear that it is the right of the African countries not to conclude the EPA. The result would be to seriously undermine EU/Africa relations. But Oxfam does not limit itself to speaking out against their disastrous consequences; it also states what should, in its view, constitute new relations between the EU and the ACP. And it is here that we see the most shameful playing to the crowd. First point: the EU should open up its markets to all ACP products without calling for reciprocity. This, however, is what Europe has been doing since the start, by also guaranteeing a " preference" to the associated countries over the other developing countries, whereas Oxfam has always fought against tariff preferences to the ACP countries, calling for a generalised opening-up of the European market. Quite recently again, what remains of the commercial preferences in favour of African bananas has just been ruled against by the WTO. In order to keep in place a preferential regime for the ACP countries compared to the rest of the world, the EU is obliged to retain the principle of reciprocity; but it is projecting this into the future, nothing has been called for immediately, contrary to Oxfam's indications. After the permanent system of unilateral preferences (which is incompatible with international trade rules), Oxfam is calling on the EU to provide additional, binding, predictable financial support to be paid quickly; and it should guarantee that its businesses bring high-quality investments to the ACP countries to provide decent work, skills and transfers of technology. How easy it is to draw up a series of requirements which actually come not from the investor, but from those who are receiving the investment! And to call for increased generosity on the part of the Europeans just as China is providing colossal loans which will relaunch the deadly spiral of indebtedness! The fact remains that Oxfam's demagogic report will encourage many African countries to reject the proposals of Mr Mandelson and Mr Michel, in favour of a commercial regime whose ultimate failure is borne out by the facts (it is well known that despite the unilateral preferences, the countries have continued to lose ground on the European market).
Having described the changes underway, I will try to draw a few conclusions tomorrow.
(F.R.)