[L-I] Africa, Education and European Aid

(Le Monde Diplomatique)

AFRICA, EDUCATION AND EUROPEAN AID
We can export sports cars and computers duty-free
by RAPHAËL TSHIMBULU NTAMBUE

The Cotonou Convention, signed in 2000, has not yet been ratified by most
European Union countries, but it is a turning point in EU co-operation with
African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) (1). Many of its provisions are
welcome, but it has two drawbacks. It views Africa's development as a linear
progression towards the same level as the EU. This is supposed to happen in four
stages: the phasing out of unilateral preferences (2), the regionalisation of
relations, the opening of the African market to European goods and services, and
the integration into the world economy by alignment with World Trade
Organisation rules.

The convention also gives a negative, restrictive impression of Africa: waste,
incompetence, widespread corruption, absence of the rule of law, poverty and
backwardness (3). This is used to justify the withdrawal of automatic European
aid, and stricter economic and political conditions and sanctions, such as the
suspension of funds.

This seems one-sided. It fails to take account of Africa's assets, which include
local expertise not used when planning and implementing projects, NGOs not
funded like their counterparts in the North, the informal employment sector on
which half the population depends, the small business start-ups that create
thousands of jobs without bank loans or advice from multinationals, and the
regional political and economic groupings often split up by foreign interests.

Since EU aid is no longer automatic, to receive it in future it will be
necessary to comply with a range of recommendations, and to meet economic and
political targets that can only be achieved with aid. The criteria for
assessment are precisely those areas in which development co-operation is
supposed to provide backing: the reduction of poverty, effective macro-economic
policies (4), efficient use of resources, progress in institutional reforms.
Africans are being asked to do the impossible.

The same perverse logic is applied in the convention's implementation. The
advantages it offers are obstacles to be overcome. An African expert says: "We
can export computers, sports cars and nuclear power station equipment duty free.
The problem is that we don't manufacture any. It is touching to see that we can
export sorghum and manioc to Europe. Unfortunately European consumers don't want
them. What we could sell to Europe are early fruit and vegetables, but those are
the goods subject to quantity restrictions" (5).

The new concept of European co-operation takes a more global approach to
development, setting general targets rather than the precisely defined areas
underpinning the fourth Lomé Convention (6). The concept is left vague, so that
the donor group has a great deal of discretion. It can decide at any time that
one area of co-operation is more pressing than another. Areas of co-operation
within the overall objectives should have been targeted for a fixed period, for
needs designated a priority. Why not focus resources on the basic regional or
intercontinental infrastructures that are essential to reducing poverty?

Under the convention, the ACP countries are allocated $22.4bn, $9.23bn of which
is the balance from the $13.6bn Eighth European Development Fund (EDF). Africans
are worried about the persistence of this lack of commitment (7). What is the
point of boasting about the generous budget when only the first quarter is open?
And will the $22.4bn earmarked for a seven-year period be enough to meet all the
political, cultural and socio-economic targets?

What is urgently needed is not to introduce new trade agreements and liberalise
imports of goods from the least developed countries, but to invest in tools of
production and make the conditions for granting manufacturing patents more
flexible. How can the EU try to engage Africa in the process of growth and
international competitiveness if it cannot help it meet the three basic
requirements: access to electricity, telecommunications and IT?

Similarly, what impact will the proposed political dialogue between the ACP
countries and the EU really have on all matters of mutual interest and the
cohesion and effect of development cooperation?

At the heart of this concern is the scope allowed to the donor group to choose
projects or areas of co-operation. When the EU defines its priorities for
Africa's integration into the world information society, it is vital for
Africans to be involved before, during and after the planning of aid. Then they
would no longer be mere subordinates in a policy that concerns them only in so
far as it offers them a precarious lifeline, not because it coincides with their
priorities. The EU has a legitimate fear of collaborating with non-democratic
political systems or systems that are democratic but do not have sufficient
expertise. That is no excuse for not involving them until co-operation
strategies have already been worked out.

The role of civil society - officially recognised - should be reflected by
making effective use of local expertise. Involving African partners in the
distribution of funds will not take away the EU's sovereignty, but will make it
more efficient. That was the thrust of the resolution adopted by the ACP-EU
joint parliamentary assembly in South Africa in March (8).

The Cotonou Convention provides for the suspension of aid if democratic
principles are not observed. This procedure and the monitoring and assessment
criteria have yet to be defined, and it is not clear by whom. The ACP countries,
African ones in particular, must have the chance to express their opinion. The
EU cannot take a decision or impose a sanction affecting Africa without Africa
being asked for its opinion or given a vote. Consultation on suspending aid
should be between the two main groups and not just between the EU and the
offending country.

Everything depends on the EU view. It holds all the cards. Is this a deficiency
in the convention? Is it because of the African countries' hypocrisy or
incompetence that these issues are unresolved? Is it because the convention is
based on the generosity of one group and the weak negotiating position of the
other, more diverse and less united than the Fifteen? Africa should renegotiate
the convention to close these loopholes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Research Director, CNRS

(1) See Anne-Marie Mouradian, "The Lomé Convention under threat", Le Monde
diplomatique English edition, June 1998.

(2) To encourage development, the EU granted the developing countries unilateral
advantages such as special access to the European market.

(3) See Jean-François Bayart, Stephen Ellis and Béatrice Hibou, La
criminalisation de l'Etat en Afrique, Complexe, Brussels, 1997.

(4) See Marie-Pierre Crozet and Dorothée Schmid, "L'approche sectorielle: une
nouvelle modalité de l'aide européenne au developpement", Afrique contemporaine,
no 193, Paris, 1st quarter 2000.

(5) Quoted by Omar SY, "La coopération européenne en Afrique, in Philippe Béraud
(ed) et al, Géopolitique de la coopération européenne. De Yaoundé à Barcelone,
Maisonneuve & Larose, Paris 1999.

(6) The Lomé Convention set a number of targets for infrastructures, rural
development, food safety and sectoral policies (in areas such as health,
education, intercultural dialogue).

(7) See analysis by Marie-Pierre Crozet and Maria Dolores Lopez-Caniego, "La fin
des accords de Lomé", in Afrique contemporaine, no 193, op cit.

(8) ACP-EU 3391/02/fin.


-------------------------------------------
Macdonald Stainsby
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
--
In the contradiction lies the hope.
                                     --Bertholt Brecht




_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
Leninist-International@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international