Solagral

However innovative it may have been in the field of cooperation policy, the Lomé Convention, now grouping together 71 ACP countries and the 15 members of the European Union, is being seriously called into question with regard to its effectiveness and relevance. North-South dialogue has often given way to a monologue on the South delivered by the North, commercial arrangements have not eliminated the marginalization of the ACP countries in international trade, and aid, while constantly growing, has failed to provide a firm basis for development. In the field of economic adjustment European cooperation has adopted a follow-my-leader attitude to the Bretton Woods institutions, and despite support in the sectors of education, health and infrastructure, most ACP countries have seen their situations worsen in these areas.

However, the massive mobilization witnessed over the past year, both in the European Union and the ACP countries, regarding the future of relations between the two blocs once the European Commission had issued its Green Paper, does show, beyond the possible weight of the past, a concern for not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. With the Lomé Convention being more threatened than ever, the various agencies (states, NGOs, trade unions, collectives, etc.) are rediscovering the importance of such a cooperative framework, are considering the new elements which should be incorporated, thereby imagining a forum for managing "sensitive issues" which are not finding solutions—or at least not fast enough—within the multilateral framework.

The fundamental question which current consideration is not really answering is that of whether there are, between Europe and the ACP countries, common questions that a new cooperative framework would be able to examine more effectively. The classic historical approach blames either the colonists, the underdevelopment or the mismanaged development of the ACP countries. Hence there is an approach akin to and using the same bases as other aid to development: the "rich" North helping the "poor" South. The debate on interdependence has led to an emphasis on negative interactions, such as the link between development and migration, the development of trafficking and the crime rate. However effective they may be in holding the attention of European public opinion regarding the South and in legitimizing the flow of aid, these arguments are no less dangerous in that they fuel fears and inward-turning strategies.

We believe that it would be preferable to consider to what extent this forum for North-South and South-South cooperation can enable us to face and provide solutions to the challenges of the coming century. Almost all the problems considered by the Alliance may thus be examined in this light. The following is a non-exhaustive list of issues of this type.

The countries most concerned by the major uncertainties and fears for the coming decades are the ACP countries. The stabilization of international markets for food products will be a decisive in the development of production capacities in these countries. It must be decided whether Europe has any particular responsibility to assume, and whether true interaction can be set in motion between guarantees of acceptable food supply and policies encouraging the development of local production in the ACP countries.

For a long time the environmental question was considered from the point of view of local issues. Today, the global impact of pernicious strategies is better known in areas such as water, soil fertility, biodiversity, vegetation and forest cover. The climate is affected by production methods and these global climatic changes pose a serious threat to certain parts of the world (increasing desertification, the rise in sea level and the risks for certain island states). The breakdown of biodiversity threatens the availability of genes which may prove to be essential for farming, pharmaceuticals and plant care. The ACP countries have fairly rich resources of this type, but often have much material difficulty in implementing economic growth strategies which ensure a healthy future. Resource dumping is often a condition for access to the international market. Given the stagnation of debate within multilateral frameworks, it remains to be seen whether Europe and the ACP countries can develop common strategies in these areas. Perhaps more voluntarist action affecting practices and public policy in these two groups of countries would be able to modify the power balance in international negotiation (for example on gas emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect). It may be possible to set up new commercial clauses in the Convention, providing strong incentives for goods produced using responsible production methods (fair and responsible trade).

Culture is an integral part of development, and awareness is the foundation of dialogue and solidarity. The fight against culture-specific isolationism—against which it is essential to struggle if the European democracies are to survive—requires increasing openness to cultural exchange, helping to understand the history and culture of others. In the past, the Lomé Convention gave this little importance, whereas it is probably a major factor in understanding and cooperation among peoples.

Though the previous convention did give more importance to these questions, it was often difficult to transform them into action or to approach the issue other than in terms of the suspension of cooperation. Political pluralism and free elections form the main part of the agenda, while the populations were waiting for the profound democratization of their societies. The Convention should provide for forms of support in these fields in other ways than by merely punishing "bad behavior".

The possibility of setting up a system of cooperation with no ulterior motive, somewhere between interference and laissez-faire, should be explored, as should the construction of means of cooperation which, by increasing the number of positive interdependent links, would give rise to dialogue among societies and among countries. The history of Europe may provide support for this debate.

As in the environmental field, social issues are at the heart of debate in societies in both sets of countries. However, European citizens often tend to approach this question from the angle—too often present in the media—of company and job relocations. Several projects would do well to be developed, to examine how European companies benefiting from the instruments of the Lomé Convention can in return commit themselves to respectable company practices, how public policy encouraging social integration and the reduction of inequality for all can be reconsidered within the context of budgetary restriction in both the North and the South, and how unions can cooperate within competitive sectors.

All these issues are vital for European societies, whose development models are being called into question by the increase in exclusion and poverty, and by the strain on natural resources which is a major concern for future generations. In all cases the participation of individuals in public life and a reinforcement of the concept of citizenship are being questioned. The doubts cast on the usual North-South divide offer new ways of approaching dialogue and the involvement of new agents in defining and implementing solutions to common problems.

The concept of partnership, a basic principle of the Lomé Convention, was to make for symmetry in political balance in debate on cooperation between the EU countries and the ACP countries, and in the management of institutions. The fact that in practice the partnership framework is still dominated by aid management and the donor-recipient relationship has made it possible to avoid facing the true conflicts of interest between the European Union and the ACP countries, and also among the ACP countries. However, the avoidance of this obstacle has made the Convention more fragile, to the extent that the real issues and some obstacles to development have been hidden or ignored.

The issue attracting most attention now is that of the coherence of European Union policies regarding the ACP countries. Support for policies on the development of agricultural production has been ruined by aggressive external trade policies, among them European dumping on markets of beef, processed tomatoes, potatoes and cereals. When facing governments which have often favored the volume of aid over the improvement of the economic environments of their producers, the Convention’s institutions (the Joint Assembly, the Council of Ministers and the Commission of Ambassadors) have proved ill-suited to the promotion of concrete dialogue on policies.

Still in the economic and commercial field, the manifest weakness of the ACP countries’ negotiators in the last GATT negotiations has made it even clearer that Europe negotiates with its own interests in mind. The ACP countries tended to trust in the Europeans, whereas the Europeans were negotiating wholesale reductions in customs tariffs, thereby favoring access to the European market for all developing countries in conditions similar to those granted to ACP countries within the context of agreed trade preferences. The prospect of increasing exchanges with developing countries enjoying high economic growth, which constitute major markets, has been more decisive than solidarity with the ACP group, including many LDCs, prey to economic reforms which have been slow to bear fruit in terms of integration into world markets.

Finally, the absence of a external policy common to the whole European Union has impeded it from playing its expected role in the prevention and resolution of conflicts, thereby leaving the ACP group incapable of dealing with these issues themselves and enabling the former colonial powers to continue to pull the strings.

Among the ACP countries, internal contradictions have considerably slowed down the development of balanced partnership going beyond the principles set forth in the Convention but firmly rooted in its practices. The composition of the group—resulting from its historical colonial links with European Union member states—has led directly to the countries concerned maintaining privileged commercial links with their former territories. It might be considered that in the collective unconscious, the Convention was more a means of discharging the colonial debt than a tool making it possible to face the future. Its monopolization by state organs has naturally led it to focus on the disbursement of financial aid (development aid and compensation for losses in export revenue) to the detriment of dialogue on policies and the adaptation of commercial cooperation. Thus each of the ACP countries has played its own tune with the European Union. While the resources of the Lomé Convention are the only ones to be predictable and lasting (five years) compared to other bilateral and multilateral aid, they have not helped the ACP countries to face up to the rest of the world. More particularly, while it may be considered that the comparative advantage of European cooperation rests on regional cooperation, most of the funds have been contributing to purely national strategies and projects.

Serious reflection on the future must necessarily include two subjects: (i) how the Convention can help reconcile national interests and the development of a clearly asserted and implemented regional strategy; and (ii) how a new convention could help reconcile short-term emergency measures with the implementation of long-term strategies necessary for development strategies in general, and the fight against poverty and the protection of natural resources in particular.

Within the Lomé Convention, the ACP countries enjoy almost identical treatment. The increasing diversity of the economic, social and political climates has led to the principle of differentiation, meaning the adaptation of priorities, fields and means of cooperation to the particular characteristics of each country or group of countries. This principle undeniably constitutes a step forward which should make the Convention more effective, even though, by reducing the base common to all ACP countries so dramatically, it might question the very existence of the ACP group. The bonds between the European Union and the ACP countries can only remain strong within a single cooperative framework which may often be incoherent, inappropriate, excessively rigid and finally ineffective. The relevance of cooperation between the European Union and the ACP countries depends on the differences among ACP countries and the differentiation of specific objectives and modes of partnership. The group will only be firmly bonded through determination and political dialogue designed to acknowledge values, global objectives and the common interest in building a framework for lasting development, a regional political, economic and social collective responding more favorably to the aspirations of citizens in both the North and the South. There remains the question of whether the ACP countries form a relevant political and/or economic group.

Regionalizing the Convention could lead to the rapid implementation of this determination to differentiate the means and priorities of the cooperative project. A breakdown into three large areas (Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific) might thus be envisaged. Such an arrangement could be enhanced by sub-regional partnerships (in Africa) concerned with political dialogue, development aid management and trade agreements.

In many respects the regional area forms a relevant base for reflection on and implementation of development strategies. The many advantages of regional integration are clear: the size of the market, infrastructures, the capacity to negotiate at an international level, etc. However, these advantages have not been enough to establish strong regional frameworks. Economic and social policies—constrained by structural adjustments—and cooperation policies have remained essentially national. Regional cooperation among ACP countries has remained in the hands of governments which are too wary of the idea of loss of sovereignty and which argue in favor of short-term national interests to the detriment of longer-term regional interests, even if the latter are more pressing. The only regional dynamics have been those of international institutions. The inter-state institutional framework, dominated by bureaucracy, is still open to criticism with regard to its capacity to encourage sub-regional dynamics and harmonize national policies. Therein lies a "democratic requirement" to bring the public and private spheres closer together to tackle this issue. Favoring a sub-regional approach makes it necessary to involve all those concerned and to leave the framework of intergovernmental organizations (producers’ organizations, company networks, NGOs, etc.). Thus political dialogue, aid management and trade agreements can be tailored to fit the concerns of the citizens.

While considering the establishment of a new Lomé Convention, it may be appropriate to examine the definition of relevant areas for regional integration and cooperation with the European Union. Once the areas have been defined, consideration of the nature of the partnership between Europe and the ACP countries could concentrate on specific regional concerns with regard to the Lomé Convention. More particularly, non-governmental bodies in the Caribbean could work on the question of trade preferences, the southern African countries on the links between trade, aid and free trade areas, the western African countries on the means of cooperation (support for regional integration, support for food security, etc.), the central African countries on prevention policy and conflict management, etc.

Differentiation will make it necessary to reconsider the criteria used for identifying the needs of ACP countries or groups of countries in the field of cooperation. This centers on the questions of who would decide on these needs, how they would decide, and on what basis.

The strengthening of partnership, which aims at emphasizing political commitment and the increasing responsibility of ACP and EU governments, at refocusing dialogue on the results of cooperation and on the projects completed sector by sector, and at reinforcing dialogue on national and regional policy, should lead those concerned to consider not only the criteria of "need" in the allocation of resources but also the criteria of "merit", based on performance and sound management. Here again, the emphasis is on who would decide on these criteria, who would apply them, in what ways and with what results.

These two types of criterion can serve the legitimate interests of citizens of the North and the South regarding human rights, natural resource management, the fight against poverty, etc. Discussion already under way also concerns the widening of the cooperation framework to include new agencies (private operators, NGOs, professional organizations, etc.). The latter could be involved in the development and implementation of policy and action on cooperation using a specific budget item from the EDF. The non-governmental bodies involved would have the role of developing proposals, taking part in talks between the European Union and the ACP countries, and implementing and controlling the application of the above criteria if they do make it possible to set up new bases for cooperation. These agencies will have to consult with one another and work in the same areas as the Lomé Convention, namely the ACP area for the Europe-ACP base and the regional areas for differentiated cooperation.

In a recent interview Nancy Kachingwe, Secretary-General of MWENGO (a network of NGOs in eastern and southern Africa), declared: "Our vision must change. We can’t trust governments to engage in dialogue. The purpose of negotiations is to draw up a convention among peoples for whom interdependence is real and at its strongest, above and beyond the technicalities of financial or commercial cooperation."

Developing solidarity comes down to setting the issues common to the people of the EU and the ACP countries at the top of the debate agenda. Debate must involve the many agencies which, alongside governments, have a vested interest in seeing the real problems faced and solved, including human rights, democracy and citizenship, sexual equality, respect for minorities, economic and social rights, and the rights of future generations.

The last fifteen years have been marked by intense liberalization of economies and exchange at a pace which is often more rapid in developing countries than in industrialized nations. The collapse of planned economies has led to the widely accepted idea that the liberal market was the principal vector for economic development and the decrease in poverty. Bretton Woods and the World Trade Organization have formed the uncontested frameworks for negotiation on both the internal and external liberalization of national economies.

At the same time, at the instigation of the United Nations, there has been a proliferation of summits studying exactly those topics which the market was apparently unable to deal with, among them the protection of the environment, social development, food security, population control and the full acknowledgment of women’s rights. Despite this, awareness of the dangers threatening the future of the planet—should the issues not be addressed adequately—has not led to a questioning of the place of the market in the affairs of the planet. Worse, the plans of action resulting from these summits must not hinder "market forces". In other words, while it is acknowledged that "market weaknesses" require specific strategies on the part of institutions, there is at the same time opposition to the definition of ambitious public policies as the contradict the criteria of macro-financial stabilization and competitiveness which are applied to developing economies. Thus it is hardly surprising to note that little progress has been made five years after Rio in the field of natural resource protection. Nor is it surprising to witness the deterioration, and sometimes even the collapse, of health and education systems which are acknowledged to be the foundations for development.

Therein lies the major issue common to societies in the ACP countries and the European Union: the European social model and the fight against poverty. In both instances the prime concern is the capacity to "rule the market", the capacity to think out new institutions which do not confer upon the state sphere alone the task of defining and managing policy but combine the dynamics of public and private agencies, integrating long-term requirements and costs into short-term strategies and actions.

It remains to be seen whether the Lomé Convention will be the relevant framework making trade an instrument in the lasting development of ACP countries. It may adopt an approach complementary to the WTO’s approach, which partly aims at conserving the advantages acquired by the powerful countries. More particularly, it is uncertain whether the European Union and the ACP countries will be able to invest in setting up a Europe-ACP system for developing standards respecting both European requirements (in terms of quality, social aspects and the environment) and the necessarily slow processes of standardizing ACP production methods, a system in which economic agencies have not only rights but also duties (cf. the debate between a multilateral agreement and a code of conduct for companies). Nor is it clear whether the Convention could make it possible to define positions and proposals to be defended in the international arena.

There is doubt as to whether the Lomé Convention can also adopt an approach complementary to that of the Bretton Woods institutions. While not denying the need for an adjustment in the ACP countries towards stricter financial discipline, the European Union and the ACP countries may adopt another profitable model of economic and social development. The "values" of such a model, better suited to ACP countries than Anglo-American orthodoxy is, could be more balanced—or better qualified—in terms of the sharing of responsibilities among public and private agencies, in the relationship between social matters and economics, in the adaptation to the specific characteristics of the countries and regions, in the organization of territories in countries with fragile national unity, in the opening of economies to the frequently irregular forces of world trade, and in cooperation and regional integration.

In cooperation strategy it is not a question of submitting to the dominance of the World Bank and the IMF on economic, monetary and budgetary issues or of claiming to develop economic counter-models alongside these financial institutions. Furthermore, these institutions have been called into question with regard to the relevance of "1980"-style" adjustments. Four members of the European Union are among the G7 nations. The European Union has fifteen members implementing bilateral cooperation policies, and is thus the world’s leading contributor in terms of development aid. The member states are directly involved in the governing bodies of the World Bank and the IMF, and make up the largest trading bloc in the world. All this confers upon them particular responsibilities and the capacity to assume them fully. Were it less timorous and more united in its approach, the European Union could provide a framework ensuring coherence between the actions of the many backers and the many requirements, priorities and conditions—sometimes contradictory—which can have, when applied to unstable countries which must face so many constraints, effects counteracting the objectives pursued. This could apply to the construction of viable, well-managed institutions, the reduction in social inequalities, regional policies, or the creation of a stable environment conducive to the strategies of private bodies. Given the proliferation of bilateral negotiations, public-sector decision-makers would often be well-advised to maximize the returns on short-term aid rather than argue for true long-term development strategies. Together, the European countries can take on this role and this responsibility, for unlike bilateral policies which may be suspected of having ulterior motives, collective action, through the transparency which it requires, offers more guarantees to partner countries, and above all to the populations of these countries.

This global approach to economic, social and environmental issues, this concept of the state as a regulator and arbitrator of compromises within society, the importance of the law of persons, and finally the importance given to regional dynamics in the processes of development and in the management of trade relations with "the rest of the world" make the European Union a key agent in the support for development and democratization strategies in the ACP regions. It is capable of inventing new ways of running the affairs common to the whole planet.