If I were to allow myself to give a piece of advice to readers interested in EU-Latin American relations, it would be: don't read the 50 pages of conclusions of the Lima summit with the attached Agenda, instead read the analyses and reports by Mathieu Bion (in several of our newsletters last week and at the start of this week) and the summary by Emmanuel Hagry of the progress of the various trade negotiations currently going on (newsletter N° 9663). The “Lima Declaration” is a verbose manifesto on world developments and on aspirations for the future: tackling poverty, inequality and social exclusion; energy policies and combating climate change, sustainable development, concerns over rising food prices, and so on. A catalogue of good intentions and statements of principle, which carefully avoid the roots of the problems and ignore the sometimes very serious conflicts which are hindering relations between that continent and Europe. The Lima Declaration and Agenda will be printed in our Europe/Documents series, for the file - that's where they belong.
What is realistic and what is not. Let us speak about reality, at one and the same time encouraging and worrying. It is encouraging by virtue of the unlimited potential of that continent and the vitality of its peoples. Brazil has become a major world power, Argentina could follow it along a similar path; relations between the EU and Mexico are shortly to be given a boost; other countries are awakening. It is worrying because the seriousness of some conflicts is hampering the operation of regional groups, which only exist on paper, and is making it impossible to conclude the planned multilateral agreements. What do work are the agreements with individual countries (Chile, Mexico) or with groups of small countries (Caricom). With the Andean Community, we have to move towards agreements country by country, because the differences, whether political, military or territorial, between Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru are so intense and the conflicts so sharp.
The most important agreement, the one with Mercosur (Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and, soon, Venezuela,) remains as an objective, but it is illusory to think it will be concluded in the form planned. The “joint declaration” approved at the meeting of the two parties on 17 May is a complete vacuum. It reaffirms the principles and objectives of the 1995 Madrid Treaty on political, economic and trade cooperation, expressing the intention to extend this cooperation to infrastructure, renewable energy sources and science and technology. On trade, the declaration only hopes for a positive and balanced outcome to the Doha Round; there is no mention of creating a free trade area - which shows wisdom - and the conclusion is modest: both parties stress the importance of an ambitious and balanced EU-Mercosur agreement and confirm their commitment to conclude negotiations “as quickly as conditions allow”.
Seizing opportunities. What is it that makes the ambitions of agreements, as they were envisaged, between the EU and groups of Latin American countries so irresolute? Such agreements can only happen if these groups operate properly, are stable and share common rules and institutions. This column has been saying the same thing for years about the mythical Euro-Mediterranean free trade area, which cannot come about until the countries on the southern shore set up a free trade area among themselves. It is possible to have an EU-Mercosur agreement with restrained ambitions, as a framework for joint action, but it is unrealistic to imagine that Mercosur could become some kind of European Union and that Brazil would grant a common institution (chaired by each of the five member states in turn) a mandate to negotiate with the EU on free trade, energy cooperation, the problems of biofuels or Amazonia, and so on. Countries like Brazil and Argentina are seeking their own way and discuss their problems with the EU bilaterally; Mercosur institutions have no role to play, the smaller countries are well aware of this and don't allow such institutions to defend their own specific interests. The situation with regard to the Andean Community is well known, so there is no need to go over old ground.
The European institutions, led by the Commission and the Parliament, will have to abandon their old plans and rhetoric, take account of the realities and the positive results of agreements with Chile and Mexico, and realise that the problems between Europe and Brazil have to be negotiated at bilateral level. The possibilities are great if we know how to take them. I shall see you tomorrow for some further thoughts along these lines.
(F.R.)