Developments in EU-Africa relations towards a situation that is less influenced by the ties of the past (see this column EUROPE 9658) is not necessarily a bad thing. The desire of African countries for less European interference in their domestic affairs, and their sensitivity about criticism and advice is understandable, as is their intention to deepen ties with other countries and continents as they see fit. The EU, however, cannot abandon the “conditionality” of its support: political conditions (human rights, freedoms etc), as well as environmental and indeed social conditions. If the conditions are made more flexible, the European Parliament and civil society organisations will be prompted to action.
As part of the facts. The result of these contradictory demands is that developments in relations are contained in the list of facts. The example of the EPAs (economic partnership agreements) confirm this. The debate at the Belgian parliament, following the government visit to Kinshasa (see this column EUROPE 9657) is telling in this respect. The foreign affairs minister, Karel De Gucht, did not regret the criticism he had made of the Congolese authorities nor the tone he had used. He indicated that when he employed a more conciliatory tone during previous visits, he had obtained nothing. He also confirmed the conditions for Belgian involvement in the Congo, including respect for commitments made on the armed militias, the fight against sexual violence, transparency of mining contracts - all the things the Congolese president rejects as meddling in internal affairs. Mr Kabila is said to be prepared to pay back Belgian aid “if that continues”. Chinese loans, as we are aware, come with no strings attached.
From Senegal to the Cameroon and Malawi. What, therefore, are the potentially positive aspects of the ongoing developments? Agriculture and the fight against food shortages, for example. Some African leaders have chosen the right direction: making food self-sufficiency the priority and the subsequent revival in subsistence production for their people instead of single-crop systems for export, which bankrupts farming communities, destroys regional balance and makes Africa dependent on others to feed its people.
I'll now come back to the position taken by Abdoulaye Wade, mentioned yesterday. The president of Senegal has outlined the strategy to make Africa autonomous and give it back its full dignity: “Whenever there is a food crisis, we are sent planes with emergency aid instead of helping us to produce what we eat…In a few months, the international community will say: we gave one or two billion dollars to solve the food crisis in Africa. No-one will know how the money has been used. I don't want this money either. But if I'm told: here are the pesticides, the seed, the tractors, then I'll take it! I decided to end all taxes on farming income for five years. All agricultural equipment will be exempted from tax”. Mr Wade described the first successes of his country in the production of manioc and maize, as well as the project for rice, in liaison with India. This year, India is providing Senegal with 600,000 tonnes of rice and, above all, ensuring technical assistance (material, seed, organisations) for local production: “in the second year, India will provide us with 500,000 tonnes of rice, in the third year, 400,000 tonnes until the end of the six year plan. Indian technicians are already there”.
Senegal is one example, Cameroon is another. The latter's government announced “a plan for food safety by breaking with the liberalism and priority on food imports imposed by the IMF and World Bank”. Malawi has become an exporter of cereals due to some very simple solutions, explained Jeffrey Sachs, who denounced the food aid mechanism, which in his opinion is a system that harms development most of all: US cereals are bought to send them to the other side of the world at an incredible cost in transport that accounts for half its overall cost.
Risks and limits to food aid. The new orientations mentioned are obviously not appreciated by the multinational companies exploiting Africa or the single-crop export systems, corrupt local leaders or big agricultural producers in other continents which want to consolidate conquest of the African markets with their low price production. Africa, however, is beginning to understand that food self-sufficiency can save its environment and regional balance and consequently the real independence of its different states. Immediate demands need to be met but food aid is not the basis for this recovery. Louis Michel ought to be able to understand this. (F.R.)