Making the right choice. Are the ACP States sure they've made the right choice, envisaging close links with the G90 in the context of trade negotiations at the WTO? At first sight, it's a logical choice. The G90 includes most of the developing countries, and it is understandable for the ACPs to mark their territory with this group! It is also understandable, from a tactical viewpoint, for developing countries to turn up in Geneva as a bloc, as united and coherent as possible, to have real weight in negotiations and influence over the result, especially as the latest round has been heralded as the "development round", and its primary objective is to integrate poor countries into the world trade system, so that they can draw the maximum profit from it. But solidarity in principle should not have to become an a priori alignment, or ever-uniform position. For my money, the concrete interests of the ACP States are not the same as some of the G90's main demands.

"Preferences" to protect. Which ACP interests are not the same as the G90 positions, or those of other similar groups? The first answer is easy: the ACPs need the EU to maintain and develop trade preferences in their favour. The main consequence of opening European borders to the agriculture of the entire world would be to wipe most ACP agricultural products from the European market, as they would be in direct competition with products from countries with favourable natural conditions and far superior production capacities (such as Brazil). African and Caribbean bananas come into Europe because the EU reserves them special treatment; ACP sugar is bought by the EU at the European price, not the world price; I could also mention rice, rum and other cases of specific provisions permitting, and guaranteeing, the presence of ACP agricultural products on the European market (the EU absorbs 85% of African's agricultural exports). Aligning on G90 positions would in practice mean the end of "selective preferences". Brazil and Thailand (plus Australia) have attacked the European "sugar" regime at the WTO, which benefits the ACPs, and are trying to have it overturned. This is the thin end of the wedge.

Choices to make. Obviously, the ACPs have every right to put up a common front with the G90 in Geneva, and to break away from the European positions. They need only say the word. The EU is largely isolated in its defence of preferences for the poorest countries; it could stop defending them before the WTO bodies, if that's what the ACPs want. It could remove export subsidies, even to poor countries which really need to get their hands on low-cost European products. And it could even reduce the political scope of association with the ACPs, if that's what the ACPs want. As long as we know.

Sometimes I wonder what relation the official positions of certain ACPs bear to the genuine interests of their populations. The results of surveys on the ground don't always coincide with the official stances. Colette Braeckman is perhaps the journalist who is most aware of the reality in many African countries; she is constantly asking questions on the ground, shunning big conferences and other formal talking shops. She went to Cameroon to look with her own eyes at the case of the chickens (see "Le Soir" of 12 May). In seven years, imports of frozen chickens (mainly from Europe) have risen from 978 to 22,000 tonnes per year, killing off local production, which had been developing positively. Certainly, industrial imported chicken is not expensive, but it's usually the cheap cuts (no white), and, above all, the hygiene conditions when it is sold are highly dubious. Inspections are almost useless, import restrictions are banned by the WTO, and any chances of developing local poultry farming for the local population has been almost wiped out.

Lessons learned. Responsibilities for the situation and its remedies can be clearly seen in Colette Braeckman's report. Amongst other things, the African countries should: a) not be obliged fully to liberalise their agricultural imports (even from the EU); b) be able to protect their local poultry production; c) apply strict hygiene standards, taking the view that checks have priority over trade liberalisation. These are some of the basic principles of the European agricultural policy. Furthermore, the principle of "multi-functionality" of agriculture has been espoused by the ACP States, which invoked for the banana trade, for instance. Do they want this notion to be applied to them? If so, they should see it as valid for all, including the EU, and on this issue, get behind the European positions at Geneva rather than the G90 ones. But some political leaders, European and African alike, occasionally adopt positions which don't seem at all to be in the interest of their people. In this case, what interests are at stake?

(F.R.)