Some give and take. Changes in the EU's relations with Africa (see my column in yesterday's newsletter) do not necessarily have to be abrupt or traumatic. They could perfectly well be a gradual process with consent from both sides. The symptoms I outlined yesterday are only examples of the changes currently under way. African countries, logically enough, will not accept any restrictions on their behaviour or their relations with other parts of the world. The EU cannot countenance any form of joint institutions or joint projects where one side is totally free to do as it likes while the other is bound by rules and undertakings. Some give and take is essential in international relations.
Inter-parliamentary cooperation is typical of the new climate. The EU-ACP Joint Assembly is vital because its work is carried out in public and everyone is free to speak out. The debates at its March 2008 sitting showed that various ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) parliamentarians anticipated most of Oxfam's accusations about the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs, see issue 9625). This is quite normal, unlike the problems encountered by the idea of taking a common position. At the final sitting, the refusal by ACPs to vote for a compromise position on Chad really set the cat amongst the pigeons (see the report back in issue 9627). I devoted an entire column to this issue (see 9630) and will restrict myself here to pointing out that the MEPs were cut to the quick and reacted in kind. The European Parliament is considering the matter. One of its stands concerns a country which is not one of the ACP group of states but is nevertheless an African nation (Egypt). The EP's views were rejected in Cairo in no uncertain terms - so vehemently in fact that the President of the EP had to visit the country to calm things down. Should the EP bite its tongue? African countries are free and independent, and so is the EU.
Europe is losing its clout. It is logical that African countries will defend their interests and sign long-term contracts to supply oil and raw materials to the United States and, more importantly, China. It is logical that these deals with China are now more important for the Congo (DRC) than its connections with Europe (see my column in issue 9615). It is logical that politically, Europe's role is shrinking in the face of the United States and China; that it is China's presence that is crucial in the tragedy of Darfur and Sudan rather than the European presence; and the recent case of a massive Chinese shipment of arms to Zimbabwe created such a rumpus that it had to be opposed (and it was Africa that did the honourable thing). The disinterest of several African countries in the revised Cotonou Agreement with the EU is plain for all to see. The deal has not yet been ratified by enough countries for it to come into force and this is having repercussions on the mobilisation of cash from the European Development Fund.
The EU must of course respect its commitments and its global status. It is, and will remain, the world's greatest importer of products from poor countries. It is, and will remain, the world's greatest provider of food aid. It is, and will remain, the world's greatest provider of financial aid. But it knows that there are now eye-wateringly massive monetary reserves in China and the Arab states, while the budgets of most European countries are in deficit and have to be rectified.
Accepting the consequences and dangers. African countries are free to make their own decisions but they will have to accept the consequences of their choices. Loans mean long-term debt. Any over-use of natural resources will feed into corruption and sharpen ethnic and social rivalry. Absence of suitable political conditions for funding can lead to support for dictatorships. The lack of environmental criteria can lead to ecological disasters. Buying masses of cut-price Chinese products can cancel out local businesses and trade among African countries. Moreover, failing or foot-dragging over re-launching local farming and subsistence farming in Africa (rather than focussing on a single export crop) will make food dependency even worse and close the door to true independence.
On the agri-food front, Europe also bears a heavy responsibility, and it shares the blame in other areas too. But the weakening of links will mean less working together and make the common management of association a pipe dream. If one reduces Europe's clout, one also reduces its duties.
Readers, have I failed to convince you? I wish you were right to reject these arguments, but I fear you are not.
(F.R.)